92 Decision Citation: BVA 92-19907
Y92
BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420
DOCKET NO. 91-18 897 ) DATE
)
)
)
THE ISSUE
Whether new and material evidence has been presented to
reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for
bilateral defective vision.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: AMVETS
WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL
The appellant
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
Christopher Maynard, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
This veteran had active service from January 1966 to June
1966.
This matter came before the Board on appeal from an
October 26, 1990, rating decision by the Nashville,
Tennessee, Regional Office (RO). A notice of disagreement
was received on January 7, 1991, and a personal hearing
before a hearing officer was conducted on February 14,
1991. The statement of the case was issued on February 19,
1991, and the substantive appeal was received on March 4,
1991. The appeal was initially received at the Board on
April 22, 1991, and docketed on April 25, 1991. The Board
of Veterans' Appeals remanded the case to the regional
office on October 16, 1991, for additional procedural
development. Thereafter, supplemental statements of the
case were issued on December 31, 1991, and February 20,
1992. The appeal was returned to the Board on March 16,
1992, docketed on March 20, 1992, and charged to the
veteran's representative on March 23, 1992. The veteran has
been represented throughout his appeal by AMVETS and that
organization submitted additional written argument to the
Board on April 16, 1992.
REMAND
The veteran asserts that his bilateral defective vision
resulted from chorioretinitis first diagnosed shortly after
entering service in 1966. In the alternative, it is argued
that there had been a significant decrease in his visual
acuity in service which, if preexisting, would support a
grant of service connection by way of aggravation.
The veteran's preinduction examination on December 8, 1965,
showed no complaints or history of an eye disorder. Cor-
rected visual acuity was 20/50 in the right eye and 20/20 in
the left eye. The veteran entered active service on January 4,
1966, and was seen at the eye clinic on January 12, 1966, for
complaints of occasional slight pain in his right eye. A
funduscopic examination revealed chorioretinitis, passive stage,
in the right eye; the left eye was clear. Corrected visual
acuity was 20/200 in the right eye and 20/15 in the left eye.
Followup examination by an ophthalmologist was recommended but
the veteran was apparently never seen. The veteran was seen
again in May 1966 complaining of frontal headaches. Fundu-
scopic examination at that time showed multiple chorioretinal
scars in both eyes, involving the macula in the right eye and
a small hemorrhage in the upper nasal border in the macular
lesion of the right eye. The veteran was recommended for
medical discharge on the basis of his preexisting and
disqualifying eye disability and separated from service on
June 2, 1966.
When examined by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in
December 1970, the veteran had only hand movement vision in
the right eye and 20/100 acuity in the left eye.
Received and dated in January 1992 were letters from two pri-
vate physicians (E. B. Feinberg, M.D., and L. E. Patterson,
M.D.), who opined that there was evidence of active chorio-
retinitis during service which, even if the disease pre-
existed service, showed aggravation of the eye disorder
during service.
In light of the veteran's contentions and the current evi-
dence of record, the Board is of the opinion that additional
development is necessary prior to appellate review. Accord-
ingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following
action:
The entire claims folder, including a
copy of this REMAND, should be reviewed
by a VA ophthalmologist who, after review
of the entire record, should render an
opinion as to whether the change in the
veteran's visual acuity between the prein-
duction examination in December 1965 and
the inservice examination on January 12,
1966 was due to chorioretinitis; whether
chorioretinitis was active during service
and, if active, whether it caused
increased pathology during service beyond
that which would normally be expected.
When this development has been completed, the claim should
be reviewed by the originating agency. If the determination
remains adverse to the veteran, he and his representative
should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and
given an opportunity to respond thereto, prior to the return
of the claims folder to the Board for further appellate
review. The Board intimates no opinion, either legal or
factual, as to the final disposition warranted in this case
pending completion of the requested development.
BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420
*
STEPHEN L. WILKINS (Member temporarily absent)
DANIEL J. STEIN
*38 U.S.C. § 7102(a)(2)(A) (1992) permits a Board of
Veterans' Appeals Section, upon direction of the Chairman of
the Board, to proceed with the transaction of business
without awaiting assignment of an additional Member to the
Section when the Section is composed of fewer than three
Members due to absence of a Member, vacancy on the Board or
inability of the Member assigned to the Section to serve on
the panel. The Chairman has directed that the Section
proceed with the transaction of business, including the
issuance of decisions, without awaiting the assignment of a
third Member.
Under 38 U.S.C. § 7252 (1992), only a decision of the Board
of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Veterans Appeals. This remand is in the nature of
a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of
the Board on the merits of your appeal.